gears didn't have a semiotic core of animalic motifs spread throughout the experience, nor did it engage the player-audience in ludonarrative dissonance 
spoiler (click to show/hide)
ebert was right
But but the super chicken bro.....
the golden chicken in gears of war represents the conflict of man and nature as we head into age of technological singularity. When first encountered by the player avatar, the chicken, in its classical white-feathered representation, is attacked by the player's powerful weapons, yet only bleeds and expressed viscera, but does not die. The stylistically frail appearance of the chicken-entity, juxtaposed against its functional invulnerability, presents a ludonarrative intersection: The player must confront, process and ultimately reject his preconceived assumptions of not only their relationship with the material world, but that of the gameworld as well. The transformation of the chicken symbolizes man's desire to shape the natural world through his actions and interference. It is no coincidence that the chicken is transmuted into a large gold object; throughout history mankind has desired not only gold, but the omnipotence to turn the naturally mundane (chicken) into the profane (precious metal). The player is again confronted not with victory, but an even more difficult opponent, capable of enacting revenge on the player (standing in for humanity at this moment).
it is at this chapter in the game 'gears of war' reveals itself to be an environmentally conscious reminder of our tenuous relationship with the natural world, and the act of trapping this message inside what appears on a superficial analysis to be nothing more than a violent distraction is a work of art.